But science is predicated on what we see and observe. Should a supreme being decide to throw the rule book out the window, do all kinds of crazy shit, but then (being omnipotent), change everything around so we didnt see any of it then we'd be none the wiser.
So no, science doesnt restrict the acts of a supreme being at all. Do you really think God (should he exists) spends his days saying 'MeDammit, if only the laws of Physics were different....)
Google have themselves created a situation where there can be no expectation of privacy.
Its akin to me taking a photo of someone in the street, sticking it on the web and then, when they complain, point out that their picture is widely available so they cant expect privacy. Once that genie is out of the bottle its *very* hard to put back....
"a genre bending alt-future-retro world where mechani-punk technology meets space opera in a blend of the best of Snow Crash and the Baroque Cycle."
Sounds horrific.
There's no other way to automagically scan all submitted videos and decide whether they are copyrighted or not. Only by having a set of material thats deemd 'copyrighted' to compare against can a given clip be tagged as legal or not.
It seems like the best solution to a practically impossible problem.
Unless we let the government have access to all our data then the terrorismists will WIN.
After all, if you've nothing to hide then whats the problem? I for one will be printing out all of my data in hardcopy to send to the government, as I am a PATRIOT.
After all - there was no terrorismisticals before the internet.
Obviously even more anti-privacy laws will make the US even safer, and do more to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to even less than the...erm...none over the last 6 years.....
If people are rushing to be 'FRIST!' then wont verification of facts come a distant second to making a scoop?
Its bad enough with 24h news networks trying to out do each other - this can only make it worse. Why not rank in terms of the reliability of the source. (How one measures that is, of course, a bit of a problem...)
Slashdot Mirror
...suppliers will supply it, regardless of any spurious 'WONT SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN' type arguments....
HeRE!
But science is predicated on what we see and observe. Should a supreme being decide to throw the rule book out the window, do all kinds of crazy shit, but then (being omnipotent), change everything around so we didnt see any of it then we'd be none the wiser.
So no, science doesnt restrict the acts of a supreme being at all. Do you really think God (should he exists) spends his days saying 'MeDammit, if only the laws of Physics were different....)
Omnipotence is the ultimate get out clause.....
Science has *nothing* to say about the existence, or otherwise, of a supreme being.
Now, who's uninformed?
'In fairness to Microsoft'
What are you, some kind of shill?
...can it run Vista/Linux/?
Google have themselves created a situation where there can be no expectation of privacy.
Its akin to me taking a photo of someone in the street, sticking it on the web and then, when they complain, point out that their picture is widely available so they cant expect privacy. Once that genie is out of the bottle its *very* hard to put back....
Tescos are selling Space patrols now? Every little helps, I suppose.....
"a genre bending alt-future-retro world where mechani-punk technology meets space opera in a blend of the best of Snow Crash and the Baroque Cycle." Sounds horrific.
Doesnt the DPA expressly forbid transferring data to roganisations whose data protection laws are not as least as stringent as the DPA?
Or does that not count because of the terrorismisticals?
Do the executives wnat them for the reasons stated, or do they want them as a status symbol when they're on the golf course?
...presumably it will be useful to control my flying car.
...on catching terrorismists!
There's no other way to automagically scan all submitted videos and decide whether they are copyrighted or not. Only by having a set of material thats deemd 'copyrighted' to compare against can a given clip be tagged as legal or not.
It seems like the best solution to a practically impossible problem.
...run on Linux?
...oh. Never mind.
Unless we let the government have access to all our data then the terrorismists will WIN.
After all, if you've nothing to hide then whats the problem? I for one will be printing out all of my data in hardcopy to send to the government, as I am a PATRIOT.
After all - there was no terrorismisticals before the internet.
...crashes into a mountain at 500mph, does it really matter that the subsequent fumes may be toxic?
Does it run on Linux?
A technology company producing a report suggesting that plain old paper may be unreliable?
Im shocked. Really.
Up next - 'Republican Party publish report saying the the Republican Party is better than the Democrats'?
...I cant see how anyone on /. would ever object.
Anyone want popcorn?
Didnt people say the same when the mobile phone was introduced?
Obviously even more anti-privacy laws will make the US even safer, and do more to reduce the number of terrorist attacks to even less than the...erm...none over the last 6 years.....
If people are rushing to be 'FRIST!' then wont verification of facts come a distant second to making a scoop?
Its bad enough with 24h news networks trying to out do each other - this can only make it worse. Why not rank in terms of the reliability of the source. (How one measures that is, of course, a bit of a problem...)
I didnt think it needed [sarcasm] tags.
I was wrong.